If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

imported post

Ok OK... This may sound dumb, but as we all know, the only dumb question is one that isn't asked. This is a 2 part OC question, so here goes.

1.) I have not been able to locate the actual statute, law in the CVC, or CA Penal Code (Same Book), can anyone give me the actual location, as so I can read it myself please.

2.) Since OC is legal as long as it's unloaded, andNOT loaded. My question is, and most certainly has to be: WHAT is the legal [definition] of unloaded and loaded?

I ask this because as we all know, for example, there is (3) legal definitions of U.S. citizen. And, depending on the [definition] of the TERM being used, or asked(as it is written for the term used) depends on your answer, or legal status. American Nationals are NOT U.S. citizens, and are entitiled to all the rights of the US Constitution, while as U.S. citizens are [Federal] citizens under FEDERAL jurisdiction, [Kitchens v. Steele] etc...

When I was in the U.S. Army, and in basic training,our drill instructor clearly told us that your weapon (M-16 in the early 80's) is NOT ["Loaded"] UNTIL a round isIN the Chamber. When you are told to "lock and load", as it was explained to us that; "Lock" means to insert a clip/magazine into the weaponuntil it locks itself in. And "Load" means to pull the charging handle back to allow a round to be enter the firing chamber, then release charging handle to fire weapon. Thus! "Locked and Loaded".

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that IF this was the true definiton? since the US Army told us [the federal governments] definition, that one could actually OC with ammo in the magazine, and be UNLOADED, but not have the weapon LOADED, since NO round is actuallyIN the firing chamber. Does that make sense?

imported post

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her
person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or
on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are
authorized to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on
any public street in an incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory. Refusal to allow a peace officer
to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.
(f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon. *
(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or
shell in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip
thereof attached to the firearm. **
(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or
any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a
loaded firearm within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful possession of private property from having a
loaded firearm on that property.
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her
place of residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.

imported post

Refusal to allow a peace officer
to inspect a firearm pursuant to this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of this section.

WOW Man! Talk about lawyers, and judges complete disregard for our fourth amendment right in [Their] law. CA PC 12031, Written by lawyers, FOR lawyershe. Lawyers and judges just love "statute" law because it means only what THEY "want" it to mean, when they want it to mean something to benefit THEM.

Hey thanx CA_Libertarian, and oilfieldtrash11 for your replies, they were helpful. Just like the Lakewood California Sheriff told me yesterday 4/02/09 when I asked about OC at the station. The Sheriff told me that even though it IS legal, "I WILL be treated as if it was loaded". Now after reading CA. PC 12031 thanx to CA_Libertarian and oilfieldtrash11, I take the Sheriffs statement to mean that our fourth amendment right means absolutely NOTHING because a "statute" which is NOT LAW says they have authority to arrest me if I invoke my fourth amd. right, and say NO and (Refuse)their demanded search to check my weapon just to see if it's loaded.

Being treated as (IF) it was loaded basically means, and is just like saying [to me at least], "Dude! your weapons LOADED, prove it's not, or you're under arrest!". Isn't it just peachy (pun intended) that they actually believe that it's ok for THEM to carry a weapon because the statutes say they can. But?, everyday law abiding Americans who DON'T need PERMISSION (because the supreme law of the land already gaurantees those rights) can't carry a loaded weapon.

Does the Constitution for the United States of America say ANYWHERE in it, that the arms we bear, [has to be, shall be, must be, UNLOADED]?. Everyone knows that when you bring to bear, or bear your arms, that those arms are LOADED. Was our forefathers muskets unloaded when they fought the British?

The people (lawyers) who write these double tongued, non sense, communist manifesto laws, and actually ABIDE by them, weeeell frends, I just hang my head low, and CRUSH the stinking bug crawling below my feet.

imported post

By law, the weapons check is ONLY to see if it is unloaded. They cannot run the serial number. They cannot retain possession of the firearm for any length of time after the loaded check. They cannot search your person or vehicle using the reason that you have a gun. They cannot detain you past the loaded check.

Heck, they can't even ask for an ID card!

Now, there have been detainments and arrests despite the laws against it, but no convictions...so far. Heller will go a long way to further securing our rights, and we are waiting on other cases for Incorporation of the 2ndA

imported post

Much of what people say in this forum is completely based on what they have heard from their friends. The law states, however, they can look at the serial number as long as it is in plain view in an area they are allowed to be. In this case, when the officer takes the gun to ispect it for being loaded, the serial number would be in plain view. Now they cannot take the gun away for any long period of time but if they write down the number or remember it, they can run it through their computer system. As far a loaded, the simple answer is no ammo in the gun or in the chamber. The ammo cannot be ready to fire or attached to the gun. If you have ammo on your person, that does not count. As far as asking for ID, what many people don't realize is that a Cop can ask you to do just about anything. If you comply, it is called implied consent. So if a cop asks for your ID and you give it to them, it is your choice. No, sometimes you don't have to and yes sometimes, you do. The times when you do or don't are too numerous to list but a simple question of, "Do I have to?" could help you. Also, as I have said now in other forums, what is the reason to not cooperate with Law Enforcement? If you don't have any warrants or any reason to hide your name and ID, the more cooperative, the better as far as ID goes. I agree that certain statements, you may not want to speak with Law Enforcement but I also disagree with don't talk to them without a lawyer. If you are a victim or a witness to a crime, you should help them so they can make an arrest as this will further the belief that you are good upstanding citizens just trying to exercise your constitutional rights.

imported post

Didn't realize you guys had a pamphlet but that is pretty good. Sorry, I was trying to keep it simple. I also wasn't thinking about criminal activities. If you are planning on criminal activites, you shouldn't have a gun whether it is loaded or not and you should not be reading this site, you should be praying or seeing a counselor or something because you are destroying this country a piece at a time. Change your life and become a decent, hard working member of society instead of ruining a once great thing.

imported post

Much of what people say in this forum is completely based on what they have heard from their friends.

Not true here. Many of us do a lot of research on these topics.

_Patriot wrote:

I also wasn't thinking about criminal activities.

But the thing is, most cops are trained that gun + ammo in proximity = loaded. This is true per PC when they are dealing with criminals. This is NOT true for non-criminals, so the distinction must be known, and taught.

imported post

Army wrote:

By law, the weapons check is ONLY to see if it is unloaded. They cannot run the serial number. They cannot retain possession of the firearm for any length of time after the loaded check. They cannot search your person or vehicle using the reason that you have a gun. They cannot detain you past the loaded check.

Heck, they can't even ask for an ID card!

Now, there have been detainments and arrests despite the laws against it, but no convictions...so far. Heller will go a long way to further securing our rights, and we are waiting on other cases for Incorporation of the 2ndA

Part of what I was referring to. This is completely untrue and I guess it is wrong to assume where he got his information from but I would guess someone here or a friend told him this.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

Army wrote:

By law, the weapons check is ONLY to see if it is unloaded. They cannot run the serial number. They cannot retain possession of the firearm for any length of time after the loaded check. They cannot search your person or vehicle using the reason that you have a gun. They cannot detain you past the loaded check.

Heck, they can't even ask for an ID card!

Now, there have been detainments and arrests despite the laws against it, but no convictions...so far. Heller will go a long way to further securing our rights, and we are waiting on other cases for Incorporation of the 2ndA

Part of what I was referring to. This is completely untrue and I guess it is wrong to assume where he got his information from but I would guess someone here or a friend told him this.

Could you be more specific about what in that quote is untrue andhow you came to that conclusion? I see nothing technically wrong with his quoted text.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

The law states, however, they can look at the serial number as long as it is in plain view in an area they are allowed to be. In this case, when the officer takes the gun to ispect it for being loaded, the serial number would be in plain view. Now they cannot take the gun away for any long period of time but if they write down the number or remember it, they can run it through their computer system.

This is correct. If it is in plain view, I don't think there would be anything wrong if, for example, the officer performing the 12031(e) check reads off the number while and his partner wrote it down. The officers then immediately release you and your property, and run the serial number once you've gone about your lawful business. (If they really wanted to they could follow you around until they get the results of the serial number check.) The above scenario would maybe add 3 seconds to the "e check" - while I think this is technically a violation of the 4th Amendment, it is such a minor one that I doubt it would be worth dragging it into court.

However, as the "e check" is unconstitutional in the first place, if the officers determined the gun was stolen, used in a murder, etc... it would be fruit of the poisonous tree, and the evidence would be thrown out. Imagine if a criminal were smart enough to figure this out! Commit murder, open carry, cop runs SN, gun is no longer admissible as evidence. Let's hope we get rid of "e checks" before this happens.

As far as asking for ID, what many people don't realize is that a Cop can ask you to do just about anything. If you comply, it is called implied consent. So if a cop asks for your ID and you give it to them, it is your choice. No, sometimes you don't have to and yes sometimes, you do. The times when you do or don't are too numerous to list but a simple question of, "Do I have to?" could help you. Also, as I have said now in other forums, what is the reason to not cooperate with Law Enforcement? If you don't have any warrants or any reason to hide your name and ID, the more cooperative, the better as far as ID goes.

Yes they can ask, no you don't have to give it, except when operating a motor vehicle on a public road. Even if you have committed a crime, you can't be charged or cited for refusing to present ID. There is no law requiring you to have ID. If you are suspected of a crime, and do not present ID, I think the officers can detain you until your identity is verified - essentially you can't post bail if they don't know who you are.

As for the old "if you have nothing to hide why not cooperate" line of reasoning... let's explore the slippery slope this logic presents...

If you have nothing to hide, you should always show ID.
If you have nothing to hide, you should always consent to a pat-down for weapons.
If you have nothing to hide, you should always consent to a search of your bag, brief case, and contents of your pockets.
If you have nothing to hide, you should always consent to a search of your vehicle.
If you have nothing to hide, you should always consent to a search of your home.

Where do you draw the line? I know some people who actually agree with all of the above. I know some people that think cops shouldn't have to get permission to search your vehicle during any traffic stop. I know some people that think like free men, and don't want to be bothered by the police at all.

I draw the line in the same place the courts do. If the cop has to ask my permission, the answer is always "no" because it means he doesn't have reasonable articulable suspicion and is just fishing on a hunch. That's a waste of my time and the taxpayer's money.

imported post

If you don't have any warrants or any reason to hide your name and ID, the more cooperative, the better as far as ID goes.

This is what I said. I simply pointed out that as far as ID goes, there should be no issue of showing a cop your ID unless you have a warrant. As far as the searches go, I agree with you on that as well. I do not think you should submit to searches of you or your house/vehicle/insert area of personal freedom. I guess I just think that the ID thing is just a little overboard and would not bother me for them to run me. Actually I would be happy if they found out that I was nota criminal rather than hanging around concerned I was going to rob someone or something.

As far as the fourth amendment violation, I don't agree. Case law is clear that if an officer is in an area they are allowed to be and they see something, they can note it down or remember it. 12031 (e) permits the intrusion. see New York v Class, Horton v California, Coolidge v. New Hampshireand Arizona v Hicks.The 12031(e) inspection, they are allowed to inspect the gun. If they see the serial number it is fair game. Now, under Heller, the ispection may soon become unconstitutional, but we'll have to see how that plays out.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

Didn't realize you guys had a pamphlet but that is pretty good. Sorry, I was trying to keep it simple. I also wasn't thinking about criminal activities. If you are planning on criminal activites, you shouldn't have a gun whether it is loaded or not and you should not be reading this site, you should be praying or seeing a counselor or something because you are destroying this country a piece at a time. Change your life and become a decent, hard working member of society instead of ruining a once great thing.

Yeah I agree, but there are so many easy to make mistakes where not knowing the law can land you with a felony charge.

If you have one of those little 1" fixed blade knives that hang in a sheath from a cord around your neck, if it is under your shirt, it is a concealed "dirk or dagger" under the penal code. This could end up being a felony count. If you also were open carrying with an "unloaded" gun in a holster, and even one single bullet that fits the gun on your person, it just became another felony charge.

So, knowing ALL the laws pertaining to pretty much anything you do, is an essential part of life in California, especially if you want to carry a gun.

imported post

That is not what I said, This is what I said.

I agree that certain statements, you may not want to speak with Law Enforcement but I also disagree with don't talk to them without a lawyer. If you are a victim or a witness to a crime, you should help them so they can make an arrest as this will further the belief that you are good upstanding citizens just trying to exercise your constitutional rights.

Can you imagine if you were robbed and you refused to speak with the cops? Or if your family were murdered and you saw it. Fine, don't talk to them and then the murderer goes free.

The video talks about "Suspects." I said if you are a victim or witness. It can also help sometimes if you are a suspect. Imagine if 5 people said you robbed a bank. You were not in the state but you refuse to talk to them and they can't verify your story. Duh...

I think it is better to say Guilty people should not talk to the police. Innocent people should be wary of talking to the police.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

That is not what I said, This is what I said.

I agree that certain statements, you may not want to speak with Law Enforcement but I also disagree with don't talk to them without a lawyer. If you are a victim or a witness to a crime, you should help them so they can make an arrest as this will further the belief that you are good upstanding citizens just trying to exercise your constitutional rights.

Can you imagine if you were robbed and you refused to speak with the cops? Or if your family were murdered and you saw it. Fine, don't talk to them and then the murderer goes free.

The video talks about "Suspects." I said if you are a victim or witness. It can also help sometimes if you are a suspect. Imagine if 5 people said you robbed a bank. You were not in the state but you refuse to talk to them and they can't verify your story. Duh...

I think it is better to say Guilty people should not talk to the police. Innocent people should be wary of talking to the police.

Even though you are 'only' a witness, you can very quickly become a 'suspect', whether you are guilty or not. As the video clearly points out, ANYTHING you say can and will be used against you. Did you watch the whole video? Even the veteran police officer tells you not to say anything because you will almost certainly say something to incriminate yourself.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

That is not what I said, This is what I said.

I agree that certain statements, you may not want to speak with Law Enforcement but I also disagree with don't talk to them without a lawyer. If you are a victim or a witness to a crime, you should help them so they can make an arrest as this will further the belief that you are good upstanding citizens just trying to exercise your constitutional rights.

Can you imagine if you were robbed and you refused to speak with the cops? Or if your family were murdered and you saw it. Fine, don't talk to them and then the murderer goes free.

The video talks about "Suspects." I said if you are a victim or witness. It can also help sometimes if you are a suspect. Imagine if 5 people said you robbed a bank. You were not in the state but you refuse to talk to them and they can't verify your story. Duh...

I think it is better to say Guilty people should not talk to the police. Innocent people should be wary of talking to the police.

This is where you tell your story in its entirity to YOUR LAWYER, and YOUR LAWYER tells the police ONLY those parts of the story that they absolutely NEED to hear in order for them to clear you.

There are MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE behind bars because they said something to the police that was used against them. Something that made the LOOK GUILTY, when taken as a single statement out of context of the conversation that was actually held. The police and the DA want a conviction. Some of themmay not even care if they have the right person. It has happened before, where they took the easy conviction of an innocent over the harder conviction of the real criminal.

imported post

So what your advising people to do is have the police arrest you, you sit in jail for months while your attorney makes an appointment to see you, you lose your job and family and a large sum of money in the process, for them to finally see that you weren't in the state when they could have verified this in a few minutes and let you go. Yeah, your way is better.

As I said, be wary of talking to the police which is what YOUR LAWYER is doing. You can give them the little information to verify your story and that's it just like your lawyer can. You tell them, "I was in Las Vegas and this can be verified by ..." That's it. Then make them do the work.

imported post

_Patriot wrote:

So what your advising people to do is have the police arrest you, you sit in jail for months while your attorney makes an appointment to see you, you lose your job and family and a large sum of money in the process, for them to finally see that you weren't in the state when they could have verified this in a few minutes and let you go. Yeah, your way is better.

As I said, be wary of talking to the police which is what YOUR LAWYER is doing. You can give them the little information to verify your story and that's it just like your lawyer can. You tell them, "I was in Las Vegas and this can be verified by ..." That's it. Then make them do the work.

First, the "advising" is not my property (your = possessive form of you, you're = contraction of you are)

Second, I am saying avoid being placed under arrest and being jailed by not giving them any evidence to use to hold you.

Third, If your attorney takes "months" to see you, you need to get a different lawyer. As many lawyers have said, if your lawyer tells you to say anything to the police, you have the wrong lawyer.

imported post

In my example, I said that 5 people say you robbed a bank. They have evidence already. What you tell them is that the evidence is wrong and here is why...

You are correct, I used the wrong form of "your." Great point. I am sure you have never mis-typed something and it has total relevence on our conversation.

Most people don't have an attorney to contact on the drop of a hat. And even if they do, by the time they can contact them, it has been days if not more. By that time you will have had an arraignment and possibly set up for pre-lim. They are not just going to let you go. Weeks turn into a month real quick. I don't know how many people can risk being in jail for weeks toa month or more. Even a good attorney may not be able to meet right away. As I said, a simple "I was not in town, I was in Las Vegas and you can verify by ..." would save you.

As I have said, be wary but I wholeheartedly disagree with never talk to the police. I try not to use the word "never" in any part of my life.

imported post

I'll agree that if you just so happen to have indisputable evidence on your person which can absolutely clear you of any wrongdoing that you should probably just let the police see it and avoid a whole lot of legal entanglement. On the other hand, such a situation is highly improbable especially if five people have claimed that you have committed a crime.

Outside of that, don't talk to police when you could in any possible way become a suspect.